Editor & Publisher, the nation's oldest journal covering the newspaper industry, founded in 1884 has today published a version of my "Why Attribution Matters" piece (originally published at BRAD BLOG a few days ago here).

E&P has done a bit of editing and given it the new title, "Give Credit Where Credit is Due". The E&P version is published here. We'll hope we don't soil their excellent 100+ year reputation.

The piece --- which was spurred originally by AP lifting a story from RAW STORY without giving them credit for their original reporting --- covers the emerging case of Mainstream Media outlets finally picking up on so much of what Internet-based news sites such as this one, RAW, and others have been reporting for many months and sometimes years. It's nice to see them finally recognizing the newsworthiness of such reports, but disappointing to find them failing to give the appropriate credit to those of us who broke such stories in the first place. Stories that the MSM outlets might not otherwise have known about at all. See the editorial for reasons why it matters more than you might think.

In the intervening days between my writing the original piece and giving it to E&P to run, I received an Email from Jason Leopold (previously of RAW, now of Truthout.org) concerning virtually the exact same problem. In this case, a helluva story he broke for RAW in January of this year on how Michael Scanlon's former fiancee kicked off the Jack Abramoff scandals was run as an front page "exclusive" in Wall Street Journal (subscription required) on Friday this week.

I believe we'll be seeing much more of this as we move forward, and I can only hope the MSM reviews their attribution policies since "we don't give credit to blogs" as the AP reportedly said while refusing to recognize RAW for their original work, ain't gonna cut it.

Since the final line of my original piece was removed from the version of the Braditorial which ran today on E&P, I believe it bears repeating here. Paraphrasing Stephen Colbert (See? Attribution! Is that so hard!?) my piece concluded: "MSM, you're on notice."

FURTHER UPDATE: Now Josh Marshall is pissed off about the same thing, since the MSM lifted some four stories alone last last week from reports at his TPMCafe! His piece begins "Okay, enough is enough." Agreed! What the hell is going on here?! (Hat tip to Jeralynn for pointing Josh's piece out to me. See? Attribution again! Wasn't that simple?!)

The attribution angle is a valuable narrow perspective on a bigger issue.

In 1960, Theodore Levitt penned a classic Harvard Business Review essay, "Marketing Myopia," regarding the need to think broadly when thinking of the market in which a firm operates. Many railroads facing declining returns in the early 1900s, for example, failed their shareholders not simply because they were hurt by new technologies, but because of their own they failed to think of their customers first, and recast their identity as transportation services firms.

Here we are today, with a wonderful new, nimble and productive media techonology, with leaders like The Brad Blog and others meeting readers desire for the truth.

MSM, take notice if you wish, or be like the railroads. Either way, the future is coming.

The only thing I can say is congrats to Brad for writing the article, fairly well done to Editor & Publisher for editing and publishing it, and shame on the for profit MSM bu$hit machine.

We profit little from their billion dollar propaganda business that continues to fool only the fools.

If I see a sign on a street corner saying "will plagerize for food", I will tend to conclude that another MSM operative has run on hard times.

The Hard Times is the name of the newspaper game these daze. They are loosing "it" ... the it being the trophy for extolling non-news, and burying America in the way back pages. Way back near the end of the paper.

Now Faux News is the head plagerizer, mis-informer, and perpetraitor of disinformation.

BLOGS do not allow that to happen anymore, without protest, and without mention. Dishonorable mention.

I'm bummed they left out your last line. It had flair, humor and left one with the point firmly in mind. I know all the reasons, yadda, yadda, but.... Sometimes things went into a certain piece, in a certain way, to make a certain point, or create a certain tone, and sometimes you really want one title for a certain reason. Not always, but, then, when somebody hacks on it and rearranges it...

Maybe I should gripe to E&P.

Maybe I should have more coffee. I feel crabby about this, and I should be congratulating you. Congratulations, Brad.

Actually, for the audience it's aimed at I think it's probably more effective as it is. It has more chance of being really heard.

Brad did a great job of finding the right tone, which is different from how he would express himself here. The minor edits were consistent with how to best reach the E&P audience without turning them off.

If one wants to communicate one always has to start by "creating a listening."

I'm pretty weird, but I think Brad's last line would have gotten a smile from me if I were an MSM journalist, making it that much easier for me to mend my ways. Everyone loves Colbert, even those he's spoofing. And, Colbert loves attribution! Win. Win. Win.

My "banned" comment from earlier in the day said much the same thing - that the Colbert reference was a humorous plus, if a bit pointed.

Anyway, a belated but hearty "Congratulations!" to you, Brad, for getting into E&P with this issue! There seems to be an epidemic of plagiarism now that the MSM has finally caught on to where the REAL research is being done.

Brad, Congradulations! Someone has finally broke
the ice on infiltaating the main stream media! Now they must take notice and give credit where credit
is due. Let's see if the big boys like AP take heed or
just ignore the news breakers as usual. I hope
other Blogs pick up on this story.

It is never okay to fail to attribute original research to the person who did it. Thanks, Brad, for this important piece.

We are seeing failure to attribute in the MSM, and also from the scientific community. They always try to rationalize it, but the bottom line is they just don't want to step off their pedestal and reveal that others are doing the heavy lifting.

But in the mainstream media, they also steal from each other all the time, without attribution. TV news teams cull the newspaper and rip off original investigative reporting all the time, write it into their broadcast without a peep as to who wrote it or what publication they took it from.

Scientists rip off their grad students, justifying it that the research will have more "credibility" under their name.

With the mainstream media, it's also something else: They don't want to legitimatize blogs if they can possibly help it, for the simple reason that they don't want to lose market share and for the more troubling reason that some of the media outlets want to exercise more control over the news than they will get if people learn to look at blogs and think for themselves.

Blogs also steal from other blogs, you know, and some people in the activism movement go out of their way to try to find ways to avoid attributing original work to those who did it, for reasons of turf wars, petty jealousy, cybersmears or gossipy backstabbing.

The whole point is: There is NO justification --- ever --- for failing to properly attribute. Not for a "higher purpose" like saying the work will get more credibility under different attribution. Not for marketing reasons. Not for scientific reasons. There is no justification.

It used to be called plagiarism. Now they just reword it, stick their own name on it, and pretend it's okay. The bad effect this has on the election reform movement in particular is that when one entity takes original work from another without attribution, it causes mistrust and reduces cooperation among the different entitites. That is only good if you want to slow down election reform.

As for the MSM, their credibility is largely shot, IMO. I won't even dignify them with the appellation "mainstream" media, as they don't represent the views of mainstream America.

I could call them the "corporate" media, which is an accurate tag. But they often use that to dismiss the critic as some fringe element.

So, instead, I simply dub them the "old" media. The media that has lost their credibility, and is lurching toward irrelevance. The media that is fighting instead of embracing the new techonologies. The media who refuses to recogise that there may be a better way.

And if they are the "old" media, Brad and his fellow cyber-journos are, by inference, the "new" media. I like that term. It's indicative of being on the cutting edge. It has street cred. It has appeal to those with open minds.

So if the Old Media won't acknowledge you guys, it's their loss. I believe it was Clarence Page (attribution) who commented a while back that his colleagues ignored bloggers "at their own peril", and that the bloggers would have a big impact on the way the media operates sooner rather than later.

The above railroad analogy is very apt. There is evolution in business as in nature. Those that don't evolve and adapt become extinct. The horse-and-buggy mentality of the Old Media will leave them stranded on the shoulder of the "information superhighway", as the cyber-journos race by. They're like the old coach who refuses to update his training methods and playbook, and is soon pushed into retirement by ever dwindling success.

So here's a salute to the New Media. Just make sure you learn one thing from the Old Media; don't overlook the new trends when they come along. Stay current, and you'll stay relevant.